Andrew Ong / Writer
Last Saturday, I came out from a Grassroots Induction Programme feeling intoxicated after being overly-fed with PAP-ganda.
This was a session organised by the People’s Association (PA) and I was there to discover more about the overview of the association.
Interestingly, the PA’s vision is “to be a leading organisation in building an active community where all contribute readily to the nation.”
However after listening to the speeches and reading through the handed materials, I concluded that the vision of the PA should be more accurately communicated as “contributing readily to the PAP”, and not our nation.
In fact, after understanding that the PA’s existence was to achieve a political objective – “namely to strengthen the Government’s presence among the people” to counter the communists’ stronghold – it seems that this association is somewhat a white elephant.
With the communist threat out, why do we need PA?
The PA- Party’s Association
Isn’t the PA supposedly a people’s association? Apparently, all of their board of members are PAP politicians led by the chairman, PM Lee Hsien Loong.
Mind you if the PA is indeed for the people, I think it would have been appropriate for representatives from the opposition parties of Potong Pasir and Hougang to be part of the board in contributing to our community.
Well, it looks quite clear that the PA is just another one of those PAP-sponsored agencies to propagate its party’s agenda (please note party, not nation). Another top-down approach.
More down-up approach
Even the NTUC, a union set up for workers is no longer for workers. This is apparent when we see that the core leadership is headed by PAP ministers.
Presently, Mr Lim Swee Say, who holds a ministerial portfolio in the Prime Minister’s Office, is the union’s Secretary-General.
Such institutions such as the PA and NTUC should be voicing the opinions of the people. But these days, the reverse of the government talking down to the people is more obvious. When this overly happens, we need to be wary as the people like you and I will be least heard more and more over time.
Here is an excerpt from a letter in ST Forum by Mr Chua Sheng Yang, that best describes the unhealthy socio-political state we are in:
“Instead of CASE taking up the cause on behalf of investors, it is former Income chief executive officer, Mr Tan Kin Lian.”
I really wonder how CASE, being affliated and part of the NTUC family, forgot to protect our consumers’ interest?
Enough PAP-ganda
When I wake up, I am in my HDB flat. I make sure I switch of my SP Power-ed lights before I leave my home to take either the SMRT or SBS Transit transport to work. If I am late, I would call for a Comfort Delgro cab on my SINGTEL mobile. My route to work will pass by POSB, SP, ITE, NUS, NUH, ST Kinetics, JTC, AH and A*Star. And work gives me money to contribute to CPF and GST.
Every where we turn, we see them. I believe fellow Singaporeans are getting sick and tired with each passing day by being “talked down” to in what we need to do and what not to do.
“Marry early”
“Make more babies”
“Put money in CPF and can take a bit out when 55″
“Put off retirement and work till 65″
“Pursue education”
Every where we turn, we hear the same party’s voice.
If it is not enough that we have to leave full decisions of our nation in the hands of the ruling party, it is equally disturbing that when we choose to speak up and voice our opinions we stand a high chance of getting slapped with defamation like Dr Chee Soon Juan or the late JBJ.
So the question begs to be answered: Is what we’re claiming to be building for our nation or for a party? I leave that answer for you to decide.
———-
Maybe I am looking a little too far ahead and being overly optimistic in my vision for a Singapore that is free from the stanglehold of the current PAP govt. In order for this vision to materialise it has to move in stages.
1. this platform has to attract a regular audience
2. never mind if the audience is a non-participative one (visitors must want to re-visit again and again)
3. this audience has to continue to grow
4. it needs to be honest and speaks the voice of the people as spoken by the people.
5. it has to provide an unbias conclusion to all issues
6. it has to provide unbias alternative solutions
7. it has to engage both the govt and alternatives alike
8. it has to be inclusive – accepting views from all quarters
9. it has to be fair by allowing all views to be shared, regardless…
As for your doubt that both govt and alternative parties may not want to engage themselves here; well, we can always force the hand can’t we? One thing is for sure, should the voice at TOC gets louder and louder, any of the politcal parties ignoring it will be doing harm to themselves, won’t it?
How can we force their hands?
Very simple. Go to the parties’ websites and bring over some of their articles to TOC for scrutiny & discussion. These are ready-made and we can then get a real picture of how Singaporeans feel towards those comments.
We will be freeing up the hearts and minds and souls of Singaporeans by giving them the opportunity to write their own comments; their own news; so to speak. Then we’ll have a discourse that delves deeper into these remarks and comments with the purpose of coming up with alternative solutions.
So, whether you are in the govt camp or the opposition camp, all issues will have to withstand the closer scrutiny of Singaporeans. This is for the benefit of a better Singapore – a democratic Singapore where each Singaporean has a role to play.
I would certainly hope that Singaporean living overseas can speak out for the country sake.
From statistics, we know that many Singaporean living overseas still hold Singapore passport, not giving up Singapore citizenship, but do not like to stay in Singapore because of the “Freedom” we are having here, the political enviroment, ever escalating living cost but not match in the personal earning, the widening of income gap and paying a big sum for a property that you can’t really call your own (99 years lease).
Our fellow overseas Singaporean certainly have a sense of belonging to the country, Singapore. Otherwise, they would have taken up citizenship of their residing country and given up the Singapore citizenship. Thus this proof that the country Singapore is still their home. But they look to have the environment to be changed.
Living overseas definitely have their own set of problems. Some countries have high tax, but compensated by government subsidies, higher salary and cheaper housing.
Security may not be as good as Singapore, but there is a great sense of freedom and openess in expression.
From these you can tell that they are able to cope with some short coming of that country and able to enjoy the freedom that the country can offer to their lives.
Human being want to live a meaningful and enjoyable life. No one would want to be living a stressful life, worrying if they can continue to pay their bills, or afraid in saying the wrong thing and get sued or put behind bars. Getting fine for doing this and doing that. Having to work till you die just to have a roof over your head. Is this what life is all about – working and paying tax?
Hope that a capable opposition can transform Singapore into a country where citizens are people of the country and not workers of the economy.